Mastering ASC 842: How to Navigate Lease Accounting Challenges with Confidence

Mark Reynald Dacaymat

Manager, Technical Accounting Group

Mastering ASC 842: How to Navigate Lease Accounting Challenges with Confidence
ASC 842 was introduced to increase transparency by requiring companies to bring most leases onto the balance sheet. But in practice, the implementation has been anything but simple. In Episode 7 of The Beehive Podcast, “Mastering ASC 842: Navigating Lease Accounting Challenges,” we sat down with lease accounting experts Lord Gen Rilloraza and Gliezel David to explore how businesses are adapting to ASC 842—and what firms can do to help their clients stay compliant, audit-ready, and confident.

The Ongoing Challenges of ASC 842

From classifying lease components to uncovering embedded agreements, companies are still navigating ASC 842 with limited success. Some of the most pressing issues we have identified include:
  • Distinguishing lease vs. non-lease components properly
  • Measuring variable lease payments accurately
  • Identifying embedded leases within broader contracts
  • Accounting for lease modifications and business acquisitions
  • Performing timely impairment assessments of ROU assets
These challenges can significantly affect financial statements, investor perceptions, and regulatory compliance. As Lord Gen notes, “Management should also pay extra attention to areas that require judgments and estimates,” emphasizing how small technical issues can quickly snowball if left unchecked.

Common Problems Encountered With ASC 842

Both Lord Gen and Gliezel shared that while most clients have implemented ASC 842 in form, applying it in substance is where they often fall short. Many missteps stem from underestimating the ongoing nature of lease accounting.

As Gliezel pointed out, “There are leases embedded within larger arrangements or contracts not explicitly tagged as leases,” such as equipment provided under service agreements or buildouts included in advertising contracts.

Another challenge arises with variable lease payments. According to Lord Gen, “Payments based on CPI are measured using the index or rate prevailing at lease commencement,” but companies often overlook this, leading to inaccurate liability recognition.

Furthermore, when it comes to changes in lease terms or business combinations, there’s a need for careful reassessment. “During acquisitions, the related leases will now be re-measured,” Gliezel explained, highlighting the importance of treating acquired leases as if they’re brand new under the acquiring entity’s accounting policies.

How Firms Can Turn ASC 842 Challenges to Strategic Opportunity

Rather than viewing ASC 842 as just another compliance checkbox, firms have the opportunity to turn it into a strategic advantage for themselves and their clients.

By providing targeted support, firms can:
  • Help clients assess contracts holistically and flag embedded leases
  • Advise on when to separate or combine lease components based on financial implications
  • Guide accurate accounting for modifications and acquisitions
  • Ensure impairment assessments are built into regular close processes
  • Establish frameworks for internal controls and review mechanisms

ASC 842 will continue to evolve as new scenarios arise. But with the right processes and guidance in place, firms can help clients avoid costly missteps and turn compliance into opportunity.

As Gliezel aptly noted, “Although the new standards have been effective for a few years now, challenges still arise as we continuously comply.” That’s where advisors step in. Not just to interpret the rules, but to create clarity, build trust, and strengthen strategic decision-making.

Why Listen to Episode 7?

In this episode of The Beehive, you’ll learn about:
  • How to identify lease and non-lease components effectively under ASC 842
  • Key considerations for firms when dealing with variable lease payments
  • The importance of identifying embedded leases in broader contracts
  • Best practices for handling lease modifications and business combinations
  • When and how to assess right-of-use (ROU) assets for impairment
  • Strategies to strengthen your firm’s advisory capabilities while ensuring compliance

Related Content

Blogs

Decoding the Digital Ledger: Navigating FASB’s New Standards for Crypto Assets and Intangibles (ASU 2023-08)

Decoding the Digital Ledger: Navigating FASB’s New Standards for Crypto Assets and Intangibles (ASU 2023-08)

In a groundbreaking move reflecting the swift evolution of the financial landscape, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has taken a significant step with the release of the final Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2023-08 titled “Accounting for and Disclosure of Crypto Assets.” This authoritative guidance specifically addresses Crypto Assets within the Intangibles—Goodwill and Other category, marking a crucial advance in establishing standardized accounting practices for these assets. Bridging the Gap: A Brief Background The rise of digital assets, from cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum to unique non-fungible tokens (NFTs), has challenged traditional accounting norms. Without specific Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) guidance, accounting professionals relied on analogies and interpretations, resulting in a diverse patchwork of practices.  Our article “Rise of Digital Assets in Business” explored the evolving landscape, highlighting the AICPA Practice Aid titled “Accounting for and Auditing of Digital Assets” as a crucial guide within the constraints of the existing accounting framework. We are witnessing a groundbreaking shift with the finalized FASB’s ASU on Crypto Assets, effective December 15, 2024, which will change how the world sees crypto assets. Who Will Be Affected? The new ASU applies to a wider range of entities than you might think. Any entity holding crypto assets that meet specific criteria will be impacted. These criteria include: Meet the definition of an intangible asset. Do not grant enforceable rights or claims on underlying goods, services, or assets. Exist on a blockchain-based distributed ledger or similar technology. Are secured using cryptography. Are fungible. Are not created or issued by the reporting entity or its related parties. Crypto assets falling within these criteria must be measured at fair value, with changes in value recognized in their income statement each reporting period. Moreover, transaction costs incurred in acquiring these assets, such as commissions and related fees, will be expensed unless other industry-specific guidance dictates otherwise. A Closer Look at the New ASU  Mandating Relevance: Fair Value Measurement  The update mandates the fair value measurement of crypto assets at each reporting period. This focus on fair value measurement stems from the belief that fair value offers investors more relevant information about the assets’ sale value and changes in that value. The Board rejected historical cost and net realizable value as alternatives due to limitations in reflecting downward and upward price movements. The existing guidance in Topic 820 was deemed sufficient for fair value measurement, given its applicability to other assets and current use by reporting entities. As financial reporting evolves, organizations offering ESG reporting services may also need to consider how such valuation updates intersect with broader transparency and sustainability disclosure requirements. Beyond Annual Assessment: Recognizing Both Gains and Losses Unlike the existing ASC 350 model, which mandates an annual assessment of crypto asset value that only recognizes gains upon sale, the update embraces a more dynamic approach. The new method captures both negative and positive market movements, addressing longstanding concerns about the traditional model’s failure to reflect the true and current economic nature of crypto assets at each reporting period. As well as providing a more comprehensive understanding of the underlying economics and an entity’s financial position, the shift signifies a progressive step toward a more responsive and accurate representation of the financial impact of market fluctuations on digital holdings. Enhancing Transparency: Disclosure Requirements The ASU prioritizes transparency, incorporating detailed disclosure requirements for asset categorization, impairment considerations, and, notably, the separate presentation of crypto assets from other intangible assets in the statement of financial position. Entities must disclose the following for annual and interim reporting periods: 1. Details of significant and less significant crypto asset holdings, including name, cost basis, fair value, and quantity. 2. Information on restricted crypto assets, covering fair value, nature, the remaining duration of restrictions, and circumstances for the potential lapse. For annual reporting periods, additional disclosures are required: 1. A roll forward of crypto asset activity, including additions, dispositions, gains, and losses. Specify the income statement line item for unrecognized gains and losses if not presented separately. 2. Detail dispositions of crypto assets, including sale price, cost basis difference, and relevant activities. 3. The method used to determine the cost basis of crypto assets. These changes enhance transparency and understanding of crypto asset holdings, ensuring comprehensive disclosure for annual and interim reporting periods. Nevertheless, entities immediately converting crypto assets received as noncash consideration or contributions into cash are exempt from the above annual additional disclosures. The Countdown Begins: Timeline and Adoption The final standard takes effect for all entities in reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2024, including interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted, allowing entities to embrace the changes ahead of the mandated timeline. However, early adopters must use a modified retrospective approach, requiring recording a cumulative effect adjustment to equity (or net assets) from the commencement of the adoption year. What Lies Ahead: Implications for the Future The issuance of the finalized ASU 2023-08 represents a proactive response to the growing significance of crypto assets in today’s financial landscape. The finalized ASU is a significant milestone in our journey toward a standardized and transparent future for crypto asset accounting, offering consistency in financial reporting across diverse industries engaged with crypto assets. The FASB’s move acknowledges the need for accounting standards that keep pace with technological advancements and reflect the realities of the modern economy. Stay tuned for further developments. How Scrubbed Can Help You? Navigating the opportunities and challenges of crypto assets demands expertise, whether you’re an individual investor or a business. At Scrubbed, our comprehensive range of services empowers you to stay ahead: • Compliance Experts: Navigate crypto regulations effortlessly with our seasoned professionals. From taxes to reporting, we’ve got your compliance needs covered. • Rock-Solid Controls: Establish secure systems and ensure compliance with the latest financial reporting standards like GAAP and IFRS. • Innovative Strategies: Beyond the numbers, we offer strategic insights about market tren ds and help you make wise decisions. As we collectively pioneer a new era of financial reporting, Scrubbed is committed to bridging the gap between traditional accounting norms and the groundbreaking shifts introduced by the FASB on Crypto Assets. Our Technical Accounting Group is ready to assist your business in decoding the digital ledger, ensuring effective operations, and maintaining compliance with evolving regulations. We also provide specialized biotech accounting services, supporting organizations in highly regulated industries with tailored financial reporting solutions. For a comprehensive consultancy assessment tailored to your specific needs, reach out to [email protected].

Read More >
Blogs

The ESG Translation Gap: Why Good Accounting Data Fails Sustainability Audits

The ESG Translation Gap: Why Good Accounting Data Fails Sustainability Audits

If I had to name the first common mistake I see growing companies make when they tackle ESG reporting, it is foundational: They don’t know if the data they are using is complete and accurate. More than that, they often don’t even know if it is the data they should be using. For years, ESG reporting was largely voluntary, a way to answer the public’s demand for accountability and show investors you were responsible. But as optional guidelines transition into emerging laws and requirements, the landscape shifts. Investors and regulators no longer want marketing campaigns. They want accurate data provided with assurance. This brings us to a harsh reality I share with teams newly subject to these regulations: If you are required to file a report in 2027 based on 2026 data, and you wait until 2026 to start preparing, you are already late. Leaders often assume their existing accounting systems are naturally ready to handle ESG reporting. They almost never are. The Illusion of Alignment I see leadership teams fall into this trap constantly. They look at their organizational chart, see a separate Finance team and a separate ESG team, and assume they are covered. But in practice, these two teams are working in silos, speaking entirely different languages. I see this pattern constantly with companies that have been publishing ESG reports voluntarily for a number of years. As they prepare for mandated regulatory reporting, leadership feels secure because their ESG team is getting the exact reports they requested from Finance. But the moment you dig into the architecture and bridge the two teams, the gaps become obvious. Here is how the breakdown usually happens: The Ask: The ESG team needs data to calculate emissions, so they ask Finance for certain reports. The Hand-off: Finance, wanting to be helpful, pulls the data and hands it over. The Gap: Finance teams are wired to be compliant with accounting standards, but they aren’t trained to understand ESG reporting. ESG teams are great at translating finance data into emissions, but they don’t have the concept of an audit. Because the ESG team didn’t have an audit background, they didn’t know how to establish completeness and accuracy. They didn’t know how to look for certain accounting transactions that would otherwise be considered emission or non-emissive (i.e., advance or duplicate payments, reversed entries in the vendor reports). They were running calculations on raw data. The people didn’t fail: the structure simply wasn’t built to translate between the two departments. The Reality of Retroactive Cleanup The true operational complexity of ESG reporting reveals itself when you try to force accounting data into sustainability buckets. Take something as standard as a growing portfolio of leased facilities. From a purely financial perspective, a company might have these perfectly recorded. But you cannot translate that 1:1 to ESG data. For ESG, you have to review the business structure to see who actually holds ‘operational control’ so you can assign those facilities to the proper emissions categories.. When a company’s data architecture isn’t set up for this level of granularity, teams are forced to go back and manually revisit hundreds of outstanding contracts. What should take a minute to encode upfront easily turns into a multi-month project just to find the proper data sources. When you wait to build the system, you force your teams to look backward instead of forward. What You Need to Check Today The fix is actively bridging the technical gap. You need professionals who can translate complex sustainability metrics into an accounting standard, and vice versa. If you are a CFO or sustainability leader reading this today, before making your next public ESG commitment, take a hard look at your architecture. Ask yourself these three questions: Are my on-book activities scoped properly? Check if all financial transactions have been mapped to the appropriate ESG requirement. Are my off-book activities accounted for? Ensure your people management, technology, and operational data are fully captured. Are all stakeholders involved? If ESG reporting is falling entirely on your Finance team, or solely on your ESG team without Finance’s oversight, you have a translation gap. Operations, HR, and Tech must understand the why and the how of the data they are providing. A calm, predictable reporting cycle is designed, never improvised. Build the data architecture a year or two before the regulations hit, and ensure your financial execution naturally supports confident sustainability reporting.

Read More >
Blogs

Sustainable Spaces: From Compliance to Commitment

Sustainable Spaces: From Compliance to Commitment

Climate change is a pressing issue, and the building and construction sector is a major contributor. A staggering 40% of energy-related CO2 emissions come from buildings, and, according to the UN Environment Programme’s 2022 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction, the industry falls short of decarbonization targets, with CO2 emissions currently reaching new highs. From materials used to construction practices and daily operations, traditional methods take a toll on the environment. Sustainable building—architecture focusing on environmental responsibility—offers a solution. Looking for Innovative Solutions for a Rapidly Changing ESG Landscape? Click here! Building Green: A New Approach Sustainable design is about creating buildings that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Its key principles include: Eco-friendly materials: Responsibly harvested wood, recycled steel, and locally sourced materials reduce embodied carbon and transportation emissions. Innovations like carbon-neutral concrete further reduce environmental impact. Energy-efficient glasses in façades minimize heat gain and reliance on cooling and lighting. Passive & active design strategies: Passive strategies utilize natural elements for energy efficiency and comfort. Daylighting, natural ventilation, and well-insulated walls and roofs improve energy efficiency and resource optimization. On the other hand, active design utilizes technologies like solar panels and wind turbines to generate electricity, working alongside passive strategies for a more sustainable future. Water conservation: Rainwater harvesting systems, low-flow fixtures, and efficient irrigation minimize freshwater demand and water wastage, preserving resources and cutting costs. Sustainable Leaders Around the Globe Many companies are embracing sustainable practices, showcasing the power of green building. Some prominent examples are: Apple Park (Cupertino, California): Features one of the largest on-site solar installations globally, alongside natural cooling systems and extensive green spaces. Googleplex (Mountain View, California): Utilizes solar power, recycled water for irrigation, and a building management system that monitors energy use. Pixel Building (Melbourne, Australia): Australia’s first carbon-neutral office building boasts efficient daylighting, wastewater processing, and a recycled aluminum façade. Bank of America Tower (New York City, New York): Uses 32% less energy than a typical office tower. Abundant daylighting, district-chilled water for cooling, and a green roof prioritize energy efficiency and resource conservation. The Edge (Amsterdam, Netherlands): Cutting-edge energy efficiency and occupant comfort technologies include a “digital ceiling” with sensors optimizing lighting and an aquifer-based temperature regulation system. Global Standards and Certifications Transitioning to sustainable spaces can unlock exciting opportunities, such as attracting investment from environmentally conscious businesses and consumers. Sustainable building practices are not just good for the planet but also good for business and several frameworks exist to guide the design and construction of sustainable spaces: LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design): A comprehensive framework for designing, constructing, and operating green buildings. It evaluates energy efficiency, water conservation, and indoor environmental quality. BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) : Evaluates energy, materials, ecology, and water usage, promoting sustainable material usage and energy-efficient systems. WELL Building Standard: Prioritizes air and water quality, user well-being, and environmental sustainability for healthier buildings. Living Building Challenge: The most rigorous standard for sustainability, it emphasizes regenerative design principles, reducing energy consumption, and promoting on-site water harvesting. By prioritizing sustainable design principles, utilizing innovative materials and technologies, and adhering to global green building standards, we can transform our physical environment into a responsible and regenerative force for a healthier planet. This transition not only benefits the environment but fosters economic growth in new and innovative ways.

Read More >

Contact Information

SF Bay Area Headquarters
111 Anza Boulevard, Suite 320, Burlingame, CA 94010, United States

Phone: (800)837-5160
Email: [email protected]

"Scrubbed" is the brand name under which Scrubbed Advisory, LLC and Scrubbed Assurance, LLP provide professional services. Scrubbed Advisory, LLC and Scrubbed Assurance, LLP practice in an alternative practice structure in accordance with the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct and applicable law, regulations, and professional standards. Scrubbed Assurance, LLP is a licensed independent CPA firm that provides attest services to its clients, and Scrubbed Advisory, LLC provides tax, finance, and support services to its clients. Scrubbed Advisory, LLC is not a licensed CPA firm.

Copyright © Scrubbed. All rights reserved.